No expert here but it was my impression that MLR systems are quite expensive and long distance, and the "regular" tubes are cheaper and much faster to use...quite deadly too. I see the MLRS more in a strategic role and the conventional Artillery in the classic role.

The MLR unit in ATG (only the Russian people group have them) is designed to be used in a ground attack role vice an artillery bombardment. They can be very effective in the ground attack role as they fire immediately before the other ground units attack, creating loss of readiness and of course causing causalities. Not only that, if you have enough of them they can even destroy fortifications. In one multiplayer game recently they were critical to my victory. I simply pounded my way through my opponent's defensive barrier causes him huge losses and destroying his fortifications. Preceded with a regular artillery bombardment and/or air attack, they are simply devastating! Don't waste your MLR units by using them in an artillery bombardment role prior to a ground attack. Send them in with the tanks and infantry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lion_of_judah

which is better to use - MLR units or regular artillery in bombardment role or is it better to use MLR units in attacks with other units instead of bombardment?

while play testing my Arab spring scenario I had 3 MLR units with 20 units in each at level 2 and used them in a combined attack with infantry and tanks, also conducted airstrikes before and it did not seem to help much, now that said the defender was in a hill hex and so this could be the reason. Any suggestions or am I correct to assume that the hill hex provided the defenders with much needed cover from my barrage and assault!